A newFASB Staff Position proposes a 2-step test to determine whether a market is not active. This will hardly satisfy those who think firms shouldn’t have to use fair value accounting for the assets in question in the first place. But for those who are simply complaining that market prices are ‘fire sale’ prices, it does seem to give enough guidance to allow preparers and auditors to justify using Level 3 inputs (management estimates of discounted cash flows coming from holding the assets) for the mortgage-backed securities that largely triggered the concern.

Any thoughts as to whether this is in time for firms that should be filing 10-Ks imminently. Can they rely on the unapproved guidance? Do they already have their market-to-model calculations done, and just needed to be able to justify their use? In any event, there should be some interesting opportunities for empirical research when the 2008 financials become available in machine-readable form. Any guesses on how much variation we will see in the application of the rule, or (assuming most firms mark to model) in the valuation assumptions themselves?

Read on to see the 2-step test itself.

Step 1 provides factors that indicate that a market is not active. Those factors should not be considered all inclusive because other factors may also indicate that a market is
not active. Factors include:

Few recent transactions (based on volume and level of activity in the market).

Thus, there is not sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.

Price quotations are not based on current information.

Price quotations vary substantially either over time or among market makers

(for example, some brokered markets).

Indexes that previously were highly correlated with the fair values of the asset

Little information is released publicly (for example, a principal-to-principal

market).

12. After evaluating all factors and considering the significance and relevance of each factor, the reporting entity shall use its judgment in determining whether the market is active.
13. If the reporting entity concludes in step 1 that the market for the asset is not active, then the reporting entity will proceed to step 2. In step 2, the reporting entity must presume that a quoted price is associated with a distressed transaction unless the reporting entity has evidence that (a) there was sufficient time before the measurement date to allow for usual and customary marketing activities for the asset and (b) there were multiple bidders for the asset.

Robert Bloomfield

Robert Bloomfield is the Nicholas H. Noyes Professor of Management and Accounting at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, where he has taught and conducted experimental research since 1991.

Like this post?

If so, would you please consider sharing it with the world.

One comment on “FSP FAS 157-e Proposes 2-Step Test for Determining Whether a Market is Not Active”

(The standard FASB employee disclaimer applies to my remarks that follow.)
To answer some of Rob’s questions:
The proposed effective date of the FSP is for periods ending after March 15, 2009 meaning that indeed preparers with, for example, March 31 reporting dates will have to apply this guidance if it is affirmed by the Board in its April 2 meeting.
My initial guess on the variability question is that it is hard to predict. The change in the trigger will likely reduce the number of impairments identified; and yet the ability of firms to exclude some or all of the measured impairment from net income may at the margin increase the number of impairments that are taken. Also affecting these predictions is the way in which auditors and preparers choose to implement the guidance. As we’ve seen with SFAS 157 and related FSPs, the rules have thus far related to fair value measurement have not been applied as intended by the FASB. Overall, it’s not entirely clear to me what the net impact might be.

Ask A Question

Do you have a question for FASRI? Are you wondering what the FASB is proposing on a particular issue, or why? What research has been done on a standards-related topic? Are you looking for advice on your own standards-related research?
Email one of the editorial board members , and we'll try to get you an answer.

Disclaimer

The Financial Accounting Standards Research Initiative is funded by the Financial Accounting Foundation,and is overseen by Staff and Board members of the Financial Accounting Standards Board. However, neither the contents of this website, nor any remarks made during FASRI Round Table Discussions, nor any research or other reports published by FASRI officers, nor any research or reports written after receipt of consultation or funding by FASRI, reflect official positions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Official positions of the FASB are reached only after extensive due process and deliberation.